1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion, such as the Plaintiff’s statement in paragraph (2), is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the same judgment as that of the same paragraph; and (b) thus, the same is cited by the main text of

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) while advertising the site for the housing site, the Plaintiff became the introduction of D, which was known to around November 2014, and became the husband of the Defendant, to Nonparty C, who was the husband of the Defendant. C is the 2,678 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) of Gangnam-si, the Defendant owned.

2) The Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant to purchase the forest land of this case on November 25, 2014 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant, while introducing the instant forest land (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

2) However, since the instant forest is included in the park area and the instant forest is subject to limited housing construction, the Plaintiff’s conclusion of the instant sales contract is an expression of intent by mistake.

3) Since the Plaintiff cancels the instant sales contract on the ground of an error in declaration of intent, the Defendant is obligated to return the purchase price of KRW 41 million already paid to the Plaintiff. (B) Determination 1) If there is an error in the important part of the contents of a juristic act, the declaration of intent may be revoked. In a case where there is an error in the motive for declaration of intent, it may be revoked as a mistake in the contents of the declaration of intent only when the parties have taken the motive for declaration of intent

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da4546 delivered on April 23, 1999, etc.). 2 The Plaintiff intended to refrain from housing in the forest of this case, and the fact that there is no administrative restriction on the construction of housing in the forest of this case constitutes the motive for the Plaintiff to conclude the instant sales contract.

Therefore, the plaintiff intends to cancel the sales contract of this case on the grounds that there was an error in such motive.